The Big Think

This chart was particularly revealing to me:

The problem with rich people (or, more properly high income earners) is that there aren’t enough of them. Upper-income taxpayers are already paying around double their fair (pro rata) share of federal income taxes on the average, and there simply aren’t enough dollars at the high end…The only way to balance the budget through tax increases is by going where most of the money is–the $50,000 to $500,000 adjusted gross income range.

(link)

This single, simple chart is a total shut-down to those who purport that the solution to our budget mess is simply to tax the wealthy. You can argue the philosophical position that higher tax brackets should pay more (and, historically, the higher brackets have paid much more than they are paying now), but arguing, as one side of the political aisle is currently doing, that getting the ultra-rich to pay “their fair share” so that we can close the budget gap ignores the absolute bedrock reality of the math. There is simply no way- no way – to balance our current level of spending by just taxing the “super rich”. Saying so is both demonstrably dishonest and frustratingly futile.

We’re all going to be taxed more in the future. Every dollar spent today has to be paid back tomorrow (with interest). So if that’s what’s coming, then so be it. I would be okay with a sound plan that showed what needed to be done to get out of debt (like a Dave Ramsey plan on steroids for the country). Otherwise, there is no guarantee that we will use the larger tax revenues on paying off the national credit card. What history shows is that the more government takes in the more it spends. You can’t satiate the beast.

Stop spending so much. It’s both that simple and that important. It saddens me that the normal folks who are trying so hard to get this message out are being shouted down.

One way or another, what cannot continue forever… won’t.

*UPDATE*

All of these numbers and trends have been well documented. It just doesn’t seem as if too many of the people in charge are paying close attention. Or perhaps they are and are simply waiting for the tidal wave to hit. The discussion in Washington dithers and is hijacked by petty political agendas. And yet the warnings cannot be more clear. When S&P warns you and the ICB warns you and the IMF warns you and the Chinese are getting together with the Russians and Brazilians and Venezuelans and Iranians to create alternative global financial structures, it doesn’t get clearer.

The crisis is by no means limited to the United States, but what happens here will have a massive impact worldwide. After all, we live in a truly global economy. Almost every country in the world will face serious repercussions from any of the potential negative financial scenarios outlined above. There is no such thing as a free lunch; a fact which has been forgotten by the economists and politicians. The options are not especially palatable, but just like with castor oil we must swallow our medicine now or face a dire future.

Sorry, friends- I really, really want to blog about non-political stuff. Seriously. But doing so feels like a head-in-the-sand response. I’ve always prided myself on planning ahead (it’s what makes me a good pilot, pit music director, and woodworker). So seeing things go downhill so much in the last few years has made me pay more attention. I just wish it wasn’t so much bad news.

Just sayin’

No, it can’t.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: When Congress offers you a bill, do you promise not to use presidential signings to get your way?

OBAMA: “Yes… This is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he is going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress. All right?”

via

As a candidate for president in 2008, Obama blasted former President George W. Bush for his aggressive use of signing statements to alter how laws would be implemented after he signed them.

“Congress’s job is to pass legislation. The president can veto it, or he can sign it. But what George Bush has been trying to do as part of his effort to accumulate more power in the presidency, is he’s been saying ‘Well, I can basically change what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying, I don’t agree with this part, or I don’t agree with that part. I’m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way,’” Obama said.

via

Pretty clear-cut, no? Well, then, here’s the full text of the Signing Statement that President Obama issued today that “basically change[d] what Congress passed by attaching a letter saying, I don’t agree with this part, or I don’t agree with that part. I’m going to choose to interpret it this way or that way,”

Blatant hypocrisy or justifiable misinterpretation? I don’t want to go all knee-jerk reactionary, but this seems like a pretty clear-cut… signing statement… that does “an end run around Congress”. Am I missing something here?